United States v. Unzeuta
Decision Date | 14 April 1930 |
Docket Number | No. 509,509 |
Citation | 74 L.Ed. 761,50 S.Ct. 284,281 U.S. 138 |
Parties | UNITED STATES v. UNZEUTA |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
The Attorney General and Mr. Richardson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States.
[Argument of Counsel from page 139 intentionally omitted] Mr. Allen G. Fisher, of Chadron, Neb., for appellee.
The respondent was indicted for murder alleged to have been committed on a freight car on the right of way of the Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company on the Fort Robinson Military Reservation in Nebraska. He filed a plea to the jurisdiction of the United States upon the ground that the right of way was within the jurisdiction of the state of Nebraska. The District Court sustained the plea, 35 F.(2d) 750, and the Government brings the case here under the Criminal Appeals Act (34 Stat. 1246, U. S. C. tit. 18, § 682 (18 USCA § 682)).
When Nebraska was admitted to the Union, the United States retained all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the territory of Nebraska. Act of April 19, 1864, c. 59, § 4, 13 Stat. 47, 48; Act of February 9, 1867, c. 36, § 2, 14 Stat. 391, 392. By Executive Order of November 14, 1876, a portion of these lands was reserved for the Fort Robinson Military Reservation. In 1885, Congress granted the right of way in question to the Fremont, Elk Horn & Missouri Valley Railroad Company, a Nebraska corporation, 'across and through the Fort Robinson Military Reservation, located in said State of Nebraska, not to interfere with any buildings or improvements thereon, and the location thereof to be subject to the approval of the Secretary of War.' Act of January 20, 1885, c. 26, 23 Stat. 284. In 1887, Nebraska ceded to the United States 'the jurisdiction of the State of Nebraska in and over the military reservations known as Fort Niobrara and Fort Robinson' on the following conditions (Laws of Nebraska, 1887, p. 628):
'Provided, That the jurisdiction hereby ceded shall continue no longer than the United States shall own and occupy such military reservations.
'Provided, That nothing in the foregoing act shall be construed so as to prevent the opening and keeping in repair public roads and highways across and over said reservations.'
When the United States acquires title to lands, which are purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state within which they are situated 'for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, Dock-yards, and other needful Buildings' (Const. art. I, § 8), the Federal jurisdiction is exclusive of all State authority. With reference to land otherwise acquired, this court said in Fort Leavenworth Railroad Co. v. Lowe, 114 U. S. 525, 539, 541, 5 S. Ct. 995, 29 L. Ed. 264, that a different rule applies; that is, that the land and the buildings erected thereon for the uses of the national government will be free from any such interference and jurisdiction of the state as would impair their effective use for the purposes for which the property was acquired. When, in such cases, a state cedes jurisdiction to the United States, the state may impose conditions which are not inconsistent with the carrying out of the purpose of the acquisition. Fort Leavenworth Railroad Co. v. Lowe, supra; Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. McGlinn, 114 U. S. 542, 5 S. Ct. 1005, 29 L. Ed. 270; Benson v. United States, 146 U. S. 325, 330, 13 S. Ct. 60, 36 L. Ed. 991; Palmer v. Barrett, 162 U. S. 399, 403, 16 S. Ct. 837, 40 L. Ed. 1015; Arlington Hotel Co. v. Fant, 278 U. S. 439, 451, 49 S. Ct. 227, 73 L. Ed. 447. The terms of the cession, to the extent that they may lawfully be prescribed, determine the extent of the Federal jurisdiction.
In the present instance, there is no question of the status of the Fort Robinson Military Reservation. Nebraska ceded to the United States its entire jurisdiction over the reservation save in the matter of executing process and opening and repairing roads or highways. It was in this view that the Federal Circuit Court decided that, after this jurisdiction had been accepted by the United States, it could not be recaptured by the action of the state alone, and hence that an act of the legislature of Nebraska, passed in 1889, seeking to amend the act of cession was not effective, and that the statutes of the state regulating the sale of liquors were not in force within the ceded territory. In re Ladd (C. C.) 74 F. 31. The conditions of the cession relating to the execution of criminal process were construed as intended to save the right to execute process within the reservation for crimes committed outside; that is, to prevent the reservation from being a sanctuary for fugitive offenders.
Accepting...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
v. State of Minnesota
...* * *.' 5 Fort Leavenworth R. Co. v. Lowe, 114 U.S. 525, 532, 533, 5 S.Ct. 995, 999—1000, 29 L.Ed. 264; United States v. Unzeuta, 281 U.S. 138, 50 S.Ct. 284, 74 L.Ed. 761; Surplus Trading Co. v. Cook, 281 U.S. 647, 652, 656, 50 S.Ct. 455, 456—458, 74 L.Ed. 1091; Bowen v. Johnston, 306 U.S. ......
-
James v. Dravo Contracting Co
...S.Ct. 837, 40 L.Ed. 1015; Arlington Hotel Co. v. Fant, 278 U.S. 439, 451, 49 S.Ct. 227, 229, 73 L.Ed. 447; United States v. Unzeuta, 281 U.S. 138, 142, 50 S.Ct. 284, 285, 74 L.Ed. 761; Surplus Trading Company v. Cook, Are the locks and dams in the instant case 'needful buildings' within the......
-
State ex rel. Bd. of Cnty. Com'Rs of Valley Cnty. v. Bruce
...state may impose conditions which are not inconsistent with the carrying out of the purposes of the acquisition. United States v. Unzeuta, 281 U.S. 138, 50 S.Ct. 284, 74 L.Ed. 761; Fort Leavenworth Railroad Co. v. Lowe, supra; Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. McGlinn, 114 U.S. 542, 5 S.Ct. 10......
-
North Dakota v. United States
...in that formality if this Court holds that revocation is authorized. Tr. of Oral Arg. 28. 16 Cf. United States v. Unzeuta, 281 U.S. 138, 142-143, 50 S.Ct. 284, 285, 74 L.Ed. 761 (1930) (State may not revoke its consent to exercise of jurisdiction by the United States). 17 Although the quest......
-
Incomplete justice: unintended consequences of military nonjudicial punishment.
...l0 U.S.C. § 815 (2007); AFI 51-202, supra note II, tables 3.1, 3.2. (107) 10 U.S.C. § 815(d) (2007). (108) See United States v. Unzeuta, 281 U.S. 138, 142 (109) North Atlantic Treaty art. 7, Apr. 4, 1949, 63 Stat. 2241, 34 U.N.T.S. 243. (110) U.S. DEP'T OF DEFENSE, DIR. 5525.1, STATUS OF FO......
-
State property tax implications for military privatized family housing program.
...(96) Humble Pipe Line Co. v. Waggonner, 376 U.S. 369 (1964). (98) Id. at 374. (99) Id. at 372-373. See United States v. Unzeuta, 281 U.S. 138 (1930); Arlington Hotel v. Fant, 278 U.S. 439 (100) Humble Pipe Line Co., 376 U.S. at 375. (101) Visicon, Inc. v. Tracy, 83 Ohio St. 3d 211 (Ohio 199......